| Matter of Mariah C. (Frey C.-M.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04671 [84 AD3d 1372] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mariah C. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Frey C.-M., Appellant. (Proceding No. 1.) In the Matter of Mary C.Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Frey C.-M., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Brian B. Mulholland of counsel), forrespondent. Susan A. DeNatale, Mastic, N.Y., Attorney for the Children.
In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Hoffmann, J.), dated January 8, 2010, which, after a fact-finding and dispositionalhearing, found that the subject children, Mary C. and Mariah C., were neglected and, inter alia,placed the children under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placedthe child Mary C. under the supervision of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services isdismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as Mary C. has reached 18 years of age;and it is further,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements.
At a fact-finding hearing in an abuse and/or neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Actarticle 10, a petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that thesubject children were abused and/or neglected (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i];Matter of Tammie Z., 66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; Matter of Daniel R. [Lucille R.], 70AD3d 839, 841 [2010]). Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determinationthat she neglected the subject children was supported by a preponderance [*2]of the evidence. The evidence adduced at the hearing establishedthat the mother maintained the children's home in a deplorable and unsanitary condition (seeMatter of Isaac J. [Joyce J.], 75 AD3d 506, 507 [2010]; Matter of Lauren R., 18AD3d 761 [2005]; Matter of Todd D., 9 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]; Matter of JessicaDiB., 6 AD3d 533, 534 [2004]).
The evidence also established that the mother neglected her children by failing to supplythem with an adequate education (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). Thepetitioner met its burden of establishing educational neglect by a preponderance of the evidence(see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d1037 [2010]; Matter of Evan F., 48 AD3d 811 [2008]; Matter of John N., 19AD3d 497, 498-499 [2005]). The petitioner submitted unrebutted evidence of excessive schoolabsences, and the mother failed to offer a reasonable justification for the absences (see Matterof Eric C. [Barbara C.], 79 AD3d at 1037; Matter of Evan F., 48 AD3d at 811;Matter of John N., 19 AD3d at 498-499).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the failure of her counsel to object to allegedly improperphotographs which were admitted into evidence, and to certain testimony, did not deprive her ofthe effective assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [i]; Matter ofKathleen K., 66 AD3d 683, 684 [2009]; Matter of Evan F., 48 AD3d 811 [2008];see also People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]).
The remaining contention of the Attorney for the Children is without merit. Rivera, J.P.,Balkin, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.